I would have come back and made some edits (and a response) sooner but I kept getting am error trying to access Crunchyroll.

After being told I was wrong by so many I was... not really convinced. KisaiGate gave me some enough to crack through my stubbornness so I went ahead and re-researched the matter. Had I been able to access the board some of the other clarifying comments would have helped as well. I was half remembering the situation and getting certain terms wrong. Embarrassing? Absolutely. I'm still not thrilled with the FCC being in charge of the matter but I was indeed wrong; at this point something legislative did have to happen. It seems dishonest of me to delete my foolish comments but at the same time leaving them up could lead to further confusion, hence why I'm edited this in as the first thing in my previous comments.

Oh the Net Neutrality fight has been brewing for a lot longer than that, predating Netflix's streaming service. It's just in the last year or so that's been in the mainstream media. Previously it was something only techies talked about.

It's great that we finally won a major victory today.

Yeah, you're right on this. Since it's notable stuff I've heard recently, it's poisoned the well a bit I think for me and probably really tipped the scales in terms of public support too for net neutrality issues.

To me, I strongly agree net neutrality is appropriate, just not really sure what to make of FCC rules and any legislation that might arise here.

I do question what else is folded into the 317 pages.

I'm debating if I want to try read it or not. Ignorance is bliss.

For the most part, I trust the Mozilla Foundation to take the moral highground on these issues, and they seem happy with the results.

Free market presupposes that you have options. There are already very few providers for most areas. These providers already actively try to prevent others from entering my area and likely most others. Without this regulation they can use their economic muscle to increase costs for start ups and drive them out even if they have a superior product because they could force their costs higher. The cable put up for most telcoms is actually subsidized by tax dollars. They like to whine they paid for the innovation and the infrastructure. They paid for part of it, we paid for the rest of the infrastructure. Hell, they even get to take our physical property through easements to run some of that stuff where it needs to go. Then they whine that this classification will reduce how much they invest. We already lag behind every nation with similar legislation in terms of speed and quality. They seem to be arguing a position that is the opposite of what the market has done operating under similar legislation. As to the innovation, a lot of it comes from entrepreneurs, not the big players. Most of the rest is coming from universities. I don't trust the government or corporations either. They will only serve my interests so long as they align with their own. In this case though, the FCC seems like the wolf that is easier to keep out of my flock when compared to the telcoms.

Well, that was interesting. Seemed to me like it was about reversing the product of unfair competitive practice. Knowing FCC are regulators is enough to make that simple connection, Not taking your word for it but that makes sense. And less barriers is always positive for user so fear of what the interference would result in is unfounded.

Got this from the TvTropes forum on the topic, and after a quick browse of it, it looks like a pretty accurate description of the situation.

The full order hasn't been published yet, but here's a pretty good breakdown of what's been said about it so far.
ISPs are being reclassified as a telecommunication service (rather than an information service) under Title II of the Communications Act, which puts them in the same category as things like phone companies. This authorizes the FCC to impose certain regulations on them. (They tried imposing some regulations without reclassifying them, but Verizon took them to court over it and won, so the FCC choose to reclassify them in order to give themselves the legal authority to enforce the regulations.)

The new rules ban ISPs from blocking or throttling traffic and from paid prioritization ("fast lanes"), and requires them to disclose their network management practices. That last is largely an enforcement issue, so that they can't claim to be doing something for network management reasons while actually doing it for business reasons. This is because "reasonable network management" is exempted from the rules — ie, ISPs can block/throttle (but not require payment for) something if doing so is necessary for the health of their network. The rules also don't apply to anything not on the public internet — such as VOIP services that don't go through the internet proper, meaning that ISPs can charge you separately for phone service that travels over the same infrastructure as their internet service. (Said phone service is subject to different regulation, as a phone service, rather than being subject to regulation as an internet connection.)
There are other random things not directly related to net neutrality — such as a additional privacy rules, a requirement for ISPs to investigate customer complaints, and the ability for customers to formally complain to the FCC about "unjust and unreasonable" behavior, etc.

There are also things that the FCC could have imposed under Title II and chose not to, including "unbundling" requirements. Unbundling would mean that ISPs would have to sell their network access wholesale — as in, to other ISPs, meaning that no matter who owned the infrastructure that goes to your house, you'd be able to pick any ISP you wanted. (This is how phone lines currently work — if you're talking about actual phone lines and not VOIP service through your ISP, anyway.) The fact that they're not doing that is something of a disappointment, as it would have effectively destroyed the established ISPs' local monopolies. Alas, it is not to be... yet. And what we did get is a hell of a lot better than nothing.

Separate from the Title II thing, the FCC also overturned state laws preventing municipal ISPs from expanding. These laws were largely framed as preventing the government from driving existing ISPs out of business in their service areas, but in reality what municipal ISPs have done is actually introduce competition into markets that were formerly local monopolies. In areas where municipal ISPs exist, they generally provide better service at lower prices than elsewhere. The Communications Act requires the FCC to use "measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment", which is their legal basis for this ruling.

The FCC is almost certain to face lawsuits from ISPs about the rulings, and Republicans in Congress have promised to pass legislature overturning the rulings as well. Since the FCC is part of the executive branch, its job is to interpret and enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch (ie, Congress). Thus the repeated mentions of the Communications Act, the law that gives the FCC the authority to do all the stuff they're doing. So if Congress passes new laws that remove the FCC's authority to make these decisions, they won't be able to do what they've said they're going to do. Of course, the chances of such a law making it past President Obama without a veto are virtually nil, so that's effectively impossible at least for another few years. Lawsuits are a dicier matter, but given that the judges ruling on the Verizon lawsuit basically said "the FCC can't do this unless they declare ISPs common carriers under Title II", which is exactly what they've done, there's no obvious case to be made against the rulings.

The thing I wonder here is how the peering issue that went down between Netflix/Cogent and Comcast plays out. It seems like the FCC hasn't decided to get involved in those fights yet, but it'll become a can of worms waiting to be opened since traffic will still be passing between networks. As it stands, there's a set of tier 1 providers who pass traffic between each other settlement free, like the guys who run the internet backbone. Then there's ISP like comcast and time warner who are "last mile" providers who most users download stuff from across the net. They still pay for the data requests traveling over the backbone and the connection required to get to the backbone. But they also have large userbases paying for them to get connections to the big guys.

In all of this, I still think net neutrality falls more in line with the end-to-end design philosophy of the internet than the other scenario. We don't build stuff into the middle of the internet because we lose the flexibility that comes with the simple architecture. That fact can't be ignored and there's plenty of famous papers in the history of computer science that corroborate this technical viewpoint. But there are practical questions surrounding this. Like when data gets passed between networks, who should pay and when? Comcast really seems to have violated the norm here so I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for them, because their obligation is to get me my video when I request it, not hold out until netflix pays them for a direct connection. But eventually, if we get enough new apps, everything needs upgraded. If the FCC rules can make that happen now then it's all the better.

Hope you all are ready for the net to start being sold to you like your phone useage is. That's the laws they are going to list it under, oh and that means they can watch what you are doing not to all legal like. Its going to bring hell to your net.

Let me ask every one some thing. Name one thing the gov runs that is not messed up or failing. If you think you found one research it and you will find its failing or massively messed up. You can now add the net to the list

Hope you all are ready for the net to start being sold to you like your phone useage is. That's the laws they are going to list it under, oh and that means they can watch what you are doing not to all legal like. Its going to bring hell to your net.

Let me ask every one some thing. Name one thing the gov runs that is not messed up or failing. If you think you found one research it and you will find its failing or massively messed up. You can now add the net to the list

So, I was going to say the military, but you've assured me it's failing and massively messed up. I disagree, but if you're so sure...

Hope you all are ready for the net to start being sold to you like your phone useage is. That's the laws they are going to list it under, oh and that means they can watch what you are doing not to all legal like. Its going to bring hell to your net.

Let me ask every one some thing. Name one thing the gov runs that is not messed up or failing. If you think you found one research it and you will find its failing or massively messed up. You can now add the net to the list

So, I was going to say the military, but you've assured me it's failing and massively messed up. I disagree, but if you're so sure...

Ok so you think its not messed up when our people are being fired on and have to call to fire back and then get told no you cant. Or how about when the drug runners crossed our border firing at our troop's and they where told to retreat. We have had females in combat rolls for a very long time but they could not get recognized for the rolls they played in fire fights cause they where not allowed in combat. This list can go on for a very long time. How about the war we are in now with the shit bags that want to blow us up. Who is standing in there way of getting the job done. Our gov. We go into combat with our hands tied behind our back, and don't try to tell me we don't I served for 8 years in the usmc.

this seems to be a win for the consumer since it should allow more internet competency all over the place and the usual suspects aka comcast,att and others will have to offer better prices at greater speeds and no more throttling.at the same time this could be also a way for the gov to get its hands on the cookie jar with those taxes that we all "enjoy" from our utilities.also,this ruling is going to be challenged by the usual critters because,again, this could be a menace to their monopoly and current business model.i honestly dont know who's gonna win in the long run but i'm just curious as to why they suddenly changed the broadband definition.i mean japan and korea among others have been light years away when it comes with better internet speeds and tech for awhile now and they suddenly care?idk

Perrandy Its a power grab. That's y they don't want us to read what it really is. Google has been building a fiber optic network for some time now they are killing every one when they move into a area. Look up what they are doing you will fall in love with them.

Perrandy Its a power grab. That's y they don't want us to read what it really is. Google has been building a fiber optic network for some time now they are killing every one when they move into a area. Look up what they are doing you will fall in love with them.

it could very well be but i seriously do not know time will tell.either way you and i have little or nothing to say on this matter anyways

since things havent been really transparent and there's alot of confusion on the issue.and confusion is almost always not a good thing

but it has occurred to me that it would be funny to see them fighting among themselves for a slice of the pie lol

Hope you all are ready for the net to start being sold to you like your phone useage is. That's the laws they are going to list it under, oh and that means they can watch what you are doing not to all legal like. Its going to bring hell to your net.

Let me ask every one some thing. Name one thing the gov runs that is not messed up or failing. If you think you found one research it and you will find its failing or massively messed up. You can now add the net to the list

You know, if you don't know anything about a topic, perhaps you should first learn about it before screaming one way or the other. This is a major problem with American politics: nobody knows what the hell they're talking about, writing laws for, voting for or against, they just make assumptions or go with whoever gives them the most money or whoever can make the best vote-trading deal.

Actually come to think of it, people screaming about shit they don't understand is...a problem of people in general. Sigh. Humans.

this seems to be a win for the consumer since it should allow more internet competency all over the place and the usual suspects aka comcast,att and others will have to offer better prices at greater speeds and no more throttling.at the same time this could be also a way for the gov to get its hands on the cookie jar with those taxes that we all "enjoy" from our utilities.also,this ruling is going to be challenged by the usual critters because,again, this could be a menace to their monopoly and current business model.i honestly dont know who's gonna win in the long run but i'm just curious as to why they suddenly changed the broadband definition.i mean japan and korea among others have been light years away when it comes with better internet speeds and tech for awhile now and they suddenly care?idk

This is definitely a consumer win. No doubt about it. The future of the internet without neutrality regulation would have been bleak. This is not at all about other countries having higher average internet speed (which, honestly, is no big deal, we're doing pretty damn good when you consider population density). It's about survival for sites like CR. It's about Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, et. al. not becoming sole arbiters of what sites you get to enjoy using.

Perrandy Its a power grab. That's y they don't want us to read what it really is. Google has been building a fiber optic network for some time now they are killing every one when they move into a area. Look up what they are doing you will fall in love with them.

The internet was create through government grants.

The government is not the great evil you think it is.

You have a say in your government.

Your VA benefits are a service provided by the government. So was your pay as a Marine.

Do you want the list again? oh never mind here it is.

All the goods and services your government provides this is not a power grab learn and actually understand the problem before you open your mouth.

Read the list you may learn something. Never does he refuses to believe anyone other than the almighty Rush, O'reilly, and Hannity.

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

Social Security
Medicare/Medicaid
State Children’s Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP)
Police, Fire, and Emergency Services
US Postal Service
Roads and Highways
Air Travel (regulated by the FAA)
The US Railway System
Public Subways and Metro Systems
Public Bus and Light-rail Systems
Rest Areas on Highways
Sidewalks
All Government-Funded Local/State Projects (e.g., see Iowa 2009 federal senate appropriations)
Public Water and Sewer Services: (toilet, shower, dishwasher, kitchen sink, outdoor hose!)
Public and State Universities and Colleges
Public Primary and Secondary Schools
Sesame Street
Publicly Funded Anti-Drug Use Education for Children
Public Museums
Libraries
Public Parks and Beaches
State and National Parks
Public Zoos
Unemployment Insurance
Municipal Garbage and Recycling Services
Treatment at Any Hospital or Clinic That Ever Received Funding from Local, State or Federal Government (pretty much all of them)
Medical Services and Medications That Were Created or Derived from Any Government Grant or Research Funding (again, pretty much all of them)
Byproducts of Government Investment Such as Duct Tape and Velcro, Teflon (NASA Inventions)
Use of the Internets, email, and networked computers, as the DOD's ARPANET was the basis for subsequent computer networking
Foodstuffs, Meats, Produce and Crops That Were Grown With, Fed With, Raised With or That Contain Inputs from Crops Grown With Government Subsidies
Clothing Made from Crops (e.g. cotton) That Were Grown With or That Contain Inputs from Government Subsidies
VA Benefits
Smithsonian Museums such as the Air and Space Museum or Museum of American History
Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson Monuments
Statue of Liberty
The Grand Canyon
World War II and Vietnam Veterans Memorials
Arlington National Cemetery
All other public-funded sites, your state or in Washington, DC

Perrandy Its a power grab. That's y they don't want us to read what it really is. Google has been building a fiber optic network for some time now they are killing every one when they move into a area. Look up what they are doing you will fall in love with them.

it could very well be but i seriously do not know time will tell.either way you and i have little or nothing to say on this matter anyways

since things havent been really transparent and there's alot of confusion on the issue.and confusion is almost always not a good thing

but it has occurred to me that it would be funny to see them fighting among themselves for a slice of the pie lol

It isn't and he speaks out of his southern mouth(if you aren't sure what this is your sitting on it.). He doesn't even being to understand how his government works, if he did he would be screaming at them for more regulations not less. But this is a very common problem in America right now specially on the political right. Yeah it is always funny watching big companies fighting over a slice of the pie because the pie can now be equally divided.